Dear ,  
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been denied.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.      
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 September 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.   
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments for reconsideration that you deserve to have your non-judicial punishment of 21 February 2013 set aside along with restoration of all associated rights and benefits including restoration of paygrade, pay, service credit, and travel allowances.  Additionally, you argue that you were unfit for continued naval service at the time of your discharge.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board applied liberal consideration to your case and considered the previous advisory opinion in your case that concluded your mental health condition at the time likely interfered with your judgement that led to your misconduct.   
 
While the Board conceded that your mental health condition likely had a nexus to your misconduct, they concluded the mitigation offered by your mental health condition did not excuse your misconduct or require it to be set aside.  In determining whether clemency is appropriate, the Board balanced the seriousness of your offense and the punishment imposed for your misconduct against the mitigation offered by your mental health condition.  In the end, the Board affirmed its previous two decisions not to grant clemency in your case by setting aside your non-judicial punishment.  In their opinion, there was no evidence you were not mentally responsible for your misconduct and the seriousness of your drug use far outweighed the mitigation offered by your mental health condition.  Further, the Board found insufficient evidence you were unfit for continued naval service at the time of your discharge since you were medically cleared for discharge and you were able to work as an anesthesia technician post-discharge while attending Nursing school.  The Board felt this evidence did not support a finding that you were unable to perform the duties of your office, grade, rank or rating at the time of your discharge due to misconduct.  Finally, the Board concluded that you were ineligible for disability processing since you were discharge for misconduct that qualified for a punitive discharge or Other than Honorable characterization of service.  The Board again felt that you already received a significant mitigation benefit for your mental health condition since you were granted a General characterization of service for misconduct that normally merits an Other than Honorable.  In making their determination, the Board considered your good character letters that show how well you have performed post-discharge.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.   
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.  
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board.  In the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 
 
It is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.  Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.        

      Sincerely,